Builder settles dispute with housing society in Bombay HC

A bench of Justices Ranjit More and Anuja Prabhudessai, recently disposed of a petition filed by the housing society located at Agripada in Central Mumbai against Vignaharta Builders, which agreed to honour its prior commitments.PTI | October 21, 2016, 13:30 IST

MUMBAI: Settling a dispute over redevelopment work at Shree Sai Sahakari co-operative Housing Society here, a city-based builder has given an undertaking to the Bombay High Court that it would construct parking facility, among others, in the society according to the approved plan.

A bench of Justices Ranjit More and Anuja Prabhudessai, recently disposed of a petition filed by the housing society located at Agripada in Central Mumbai against Vignaharta Builders, which agreed to honour its prior commitments.

The court noted in its order that the builder had assured in the undertaking through its lawyer A S Khandeparkar that it would construct corridors connecting the redeveloped building with the new building for sale in accordance with the approved plan.

Vignaharta Builders also undertook to construct a temple in accordance with the approved plan provided the society and its members and Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) cooperated in removing the existing temple by Sainath Mandal.

The builder also agreed to pay Rs 51 lakh as corpus fund to the Society instead of Rs 30 lakh paid earlier, provided they got back their cheque of Rs 30 lakh from the society which had not yet encashed it.

Counsel for the petitioner society Rajesh Vanzara told the judges that the undertaking given by the builder was acceptable to the society and in the light of this development, the grievance of the society stands redressed.

Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the petition.

In the petition, the society had alleged that serious violations were made by the builder in the development rules and regulation.

As the builder was not honouring its commitment and was constructing a new building in violation of the development rules, the society had revoked or terminated its agreement with the builders, it said.

The builder had stopped paying rent to its members despite a commitment made to this effect earlier. Moreover, 138 families stayed in transit accommodation elsewhere after the society building was pulled down for redevelopment and they had already spent 10 years in these transit houses, its lawyer contended.

In an interim order, the High Court had earlier asked MCGM to depute an officer to the rehabilitated society building after builder submitted that they had complied with rules and regulations. SVS NRB KIS